Educational  Amendment  to  tke  Constitution 


Speech  of  Hon.  F.  T.  FBELIN6HUTSEH, 

Of  New  Jersey,  in  the  U.  S.  Senate,  August  — ,  1876. 


AMENDMENT  AS  PASSED  BY  THE  HOUSE 
OF  REPRESENTATIVES. 

Resolved  by  the  Senate  and  ITonee  of  Represen¬ 
tatives  of  the  United  States  of  America  in  Con¬ 
gress  assembled,  ( two-thirds  of  each  House  con¬ 
curring  therein,')  That  the  following  be  proposed  to 
the  several  States  of  the  Union  as  an  amendment  to 
the  Constitution,  namely : 

Article  XVI. 

No  State  shall  make  any  law  respecting  an  estab¬ 
lishment  of  religion,  or  prohibitins  the  free  excercise 
thereof;  and  no  money  raised  by  taxation  in  any 
'  State  for  the  support  of  public  schools,  or  derived 
from  any  public  fund  therefor,  nor  any  public  lands 
devoted  thereto,  shall  ever  be  under  the  control  of 
any  religious  sect  or  denomination ;  nor  shall  any 
mouey  so  raised  or  lands  so  devoted  be  divided  be¬ 
tween  religious  sects  or  denominations.  This  article 
shall  not  vest,  enlarge,  or  diminish  legislative  power 
in  Congress. 

AMENDMENT  AS  PASSED  IN  THE  SENATE. 

That  the  following  article  bo  proposed  to  the  Legis¬ 
latures  of  the  several  States  as  an  amendment  to  the 
Constitution  of  the  United  States,  which,  when  rati¬ 
fied  by  three-fourths  of  the  said  Legislatures,  shall  be 
valid  as  a  part  of  the  said  Constitution,  namely  : 

Article  XVI. 

No  State  shall  make  any  law  respecting  an  estab- 
'“^ishment  of  religion  or  prohibiting  the  free  exercise 
thereof;  and  no  religious  test  shall  ever  be  required 
as  a  qualification  to  any  office  or  public  trust  under 
any  State.  No  public  property  and  no  public  revenue 
of,  nor  any  loan  of  credit  by  or  under  the  authority 
of,  the  United  States,  or  any  State,  Territory,  Dis¬ 
trict,  or  municipal  corporation,  shall  be  appropriated 
to  or  made  or  used  for  tho  support  of  any  school,  ed¬ 
ucational  or  other  institution  under  the  control  of  any 
religious  or  anti-religious  .sect,  organization,  or  de¬ 
nomination,  or  wherein  the  particular  creed  or  tenets 
of  any  religious  or  antj^eligious  sect,  organization,  or 
denomination  shalUrtftaught.  And  no  such  [(articu¬ 
lar  creed  or  tejp^fs  shall  bo  read  or  taught  in  any 
school  or  insljjfcftion  supported  in  whole  or  in  part  by 
such  revenue  or  loan  of  credit;  and  no  such  appro- 
priathm  or  loan  of  credit  shall  be  made  to  any  reli¬ 
gious  or  anti-religious  sect,  organization,  or  denomi- 
tialiofi,  or  to  promote  its  interests  or  tenets,  This 
article  shall  not  be  construed  to  prohibit  the  reading 
of  the  Bible  in  any  school  or  institution  ;  and  it  shall 
not  have  the  effect  to  impair  rights  of  property  al¬ 
ready  vested. 

Sec.  2.  Congress  shall  have  power,  by  appropriate 
legislation,  to  provide  for  the  proveniion  and  punish¬ 
ment  of  violations  of  this  article. 

THE  SCHOOL  AMENDMENT. 

The  Senate  proceeded  to  consider  the 
joint  resolution  (H.  R.  No.  1)  proposing  an 
amendment  to  the  Constitution  of  the  United 
States,  the  pending  question  being  on  its 
passage. 

Mr.  FRELINGHUYSEN.  Mr.  Presi¬ 
dent,  before  the  vote  is  taken  on  this  meas¬ 
ure,  I  propose  to  state  the  principles  in¬ 
volved  in  it,  and  to  do  so  with  great  brevity. 

There  are  only  two  principles  involved  in 
this  article  for  the  amendment  of  the  Con¬ 
stitution,  as  passed  by  the  House  or  as  now 
amended  by  the  Senate  : 

I.  That  there  shall  be  no  establishment  of 


religion  or  prohibition  of  the  free  exercise 
thereof,  and  that  there  shall  be  no  religions 
test  as  a  qualification  to  office  in  the  several 
States  of  the  Union. 

II.  That  the  people  shall  not  be  taxed  to 
promote  the  particular  creed  or  tenets  of 
any  religious  or  anti-religious  sect  or  de¬ 
nomination. 

Let  me  remark  that  it  is  manifest  that  the 
people  call  for  an  amendment  covering 
these  two  principles.  This  is  manifest  from 
the  fact  that  the  Representatives  of  the 
people  of  every  religious'and  political  per¬ 
suasion,  coming  fresh  from  every  section  of 
the  country,  have  by  a  vote  of  166  out  of 
171,  (only  5  negatives)  declared  that  to  be 
the  will  of  the  people.  Further,  sir;  on  the 
passage  by  the  House  of  this  amendment, 
which  undertook  to  affirm  and  to  protect 
these  two  principles,  and  which  the  people 
and  the  press,  and  which  I  assume  the 
House  of  Representatives  thought  was  ef¬ 
fective,  great  gratification  was  afiorded  to 
the  whole  country,  not  only  because  of  their 
wish  that  these  principles  should  be  incor¬ 
porated  in  our  fundamental  law,  but  also 
because  this  vexed  question  was  to  be  re¬ 
moved  from  the  arena  of  party  politics. 
The  great  unanimity  of  the  vote  in  the 
House  shows  how  strong  is  the  conviction  of 
the  Representatives  of  the  people  that  this 
article  of  amendment  to  the  Constitution  is 
witiiin  the  legitimate  province  of  constitu¬ 
tional  amendments,  and  is  also  in  accord 
with  the  best  policy  and  the  soundest  in¬ 
terests  of  the  nation.  There  is,  sir,  no  room 
for  two  opinions  on  the  two  propositions 
that  religion  and  conscience  should  be  free, 
and  that  the  people  should  not  be  taxed  for 
sectarian  purposes.  The  whole  history  of 
our  coautry,  from  its  origin  to  the  present 
day,  establishes  and  fortifies  these  positions. 
And  nothing  can  be  clearer  than  that  these 
fundamental  rights  should  be  secured  in  a 
constitution  ordained  expressly  to  “estab¬ 
lish  justice  ”  and  to  “  secure  the  blessings  of 
liberty .” 

Mr.  President,  while  the  two  principles 
of  religious  freedom  and  exemption  from 
taxation  for  sectarian  purposes  are  plainly 
asserted  hi  the  article  as  it  comes  to  us  from 
the  House,  there  are,  unfortunately,  in  it 
defects  and  omissions,  that  were  it  accepted 
without  amendment  by  the  States  would 
render  it  nugatory  and  invalid.  And  the 
House  should  be  gratified  that  a  more  care¬ 
ful  scrutiny  has  discovered  and  corrected 
these  defects,  and  should  be  ready  to  concur 
at  once  in  the  amendment  of  the  Senate.  I 


2 


will  point  out  these  defects  and  their  cor¬ 
rections. 

I.  The  fifth  article  of  the  Constitution  re¬ 
quires  that  Congress  when  proposing  amend¬ 
ments  to  the  Constitution  shall  state  to  the 
people  in  what  manner  the  amendment  shall 
be  ratified  ;  whether  by  the  Legislatures  of 
the  States  or  by  conventions  in  the  States  ; 
the  fifth  article  is  as  follows: 

The  Congress,  whenever  two-thirds  of  both  Houses 
shall  deem  it  necessary,  shall  propose  amendments 
to  this  Constitution,  or  on  the  application  of  the 
Legislatures  of  two-thirds  of  the  several  States,  shall 
call  a  convention  for  proposing  amendments,  which, 
in  either  case,  shall  be  valid  to  all  intents  and  pur¬ 
poses,  as  part  of  this  Constitution,  when  ratified  by 
the  Legislatures  of  three-fourths  of  the  several 
States,  or  by  conventions  in  three-fourths  thereof,  as 
the  one  or  the  other  mode  of  ratification  may  be 
proposed  by  the  Congress. 

This  article  amending  the  Constitution  as 
it  came  from  the  House  failed  to  propose 
either  mode  of  ratifying  this  amendment. 
It  did  not  propose  that  it  should  be  ratified 
by  the  Legislatures  or  that  it  should  be  rati¬ 
fied  by  conventions.  Had  the  Legislatures 
ratified  it,  not  being  in  conformity  with  the 
requirements  of  the  Constitution,  it  would 
have  been  invalid. 

I  call  the  attention  of  the  Senate  theto 
first  alteration  the  House  amendment  makes 
in  our  Constitution.  The  first  amendment 
to  the  Constitution,  enacted  shortly  after  the 
adoption  of  the  Constitution,  provides 
that — 

Congress  shall  make  no  law  respecting  an  estab¬ 
lishment  of  religion,  or  prohibiting  the  free  exercise 
thereof. 

This  is  an  inhibition  on  Congress,  and  not 
on  the  States.  The  House  article  very 
properly  extends  the  prohibition  of  the  first 
amendment  of  the  Constitution  to  the  States. 
But  the  sixth  article  of  the  old  Constitution 
also  provides  that — 

No  religious  test  shall  ever  be  required  as  a  quali¬ 
fication  to  any  office  or  public  trust  under  the  United 
States. 

This  provision  in  such  close  harmony  with 
the  first  amendment  of  the  Constitution, 
the  House  article  entirely  omits,  and  it  has 
very  properly  been  inserted  by  the  Senate 
and  made  applicable  to  the  States.  Nobody 
can  object  to  the  Senate  amendment  on  ac¬ 
count  of  these  two  positions  contained  in  it. 

Thus  the  article  as  amended  by  the  Sen¬ 
ate  prohibits  the  States,  for  the  first  time, 
from  the  establishment  of  religion,  from*  pro¬ 
hibiting  its  free  exercise,  and  from  making 
any  religious  test  a  qualification  to  office. 

II.  Now,  as  to  the  second  division  of  the 
proposed  article  amending  the  Constitution 
relative  to  the  use  of  the  public  money  for 
sectarian  purposes,  let  me  say  that  there  are 
■fix  different  modes  by  which  the  people  can 
be  taxed  for  sectarian  purposes. 

1.  By  appropriating  money  raised  for 
school  purposes  to  sectarian  schools. 


2.  By  appropriating  money  from  the 
general  Treasury  to  sectarian  schools. 

3.  By  appropriating  public  money  to  sec¬ 
tarian  institutions  other  than  schools,  as 
theological  institutions,  sectarian  colleges, 
monasteries,  and  nunneries. 

4.  By  devoting  schools  or  other  institutions 
established  by  public  funds,  when  so  estab¬ 
lished,  to  sectarian  purposes. 

5.  By  making  appropriations  of  public 
money  to  religious  denominations,  or  to  pro¬ 
mote  their  interests. 

6.  By  appropriating  public  money  to  an 
institution  to  promote  infidelity  or  for  the 
benefit  of  an  anti-religious  sect. 

The  amendment  of  the  Senate  guards 
against  all  these  abuses,  while  the  article  as 
it  came  from  the  House  only  prohibited  the 
first,  to  wit,  the  appropriation  of  public 
money,  and  only  public  money  raised  for 
schools,,  to  sectarian  schools  or  dividing  it 
among  denominations. 

*  -*  *  *  *  *  * 

The  PRESIDENT  pro  tempore.  The 
question  is  on  the  passage  of  the  resolution, 
on  which  the  yeas  and  nays  have  been  or¬ 
dered. 

The  Secretary  proceeded  to  call  the  roll. 
*  *  *  *  *  * 

The  result  was  announced — yeas  28,  nays 
16  ;  as  follows : 

YEAS — Messrs.  Allison,  Anthony,  Booth,  Bout- 
well,  Bruce,  Burnside,  Cameron  of  W  isconsin,  Chris- 
tiancy,  Clayton,  Conklin g,  Cragin,  Edmunds,  Ferry, 
Frelingliuysen,  Harvey,  Joues  of  Nevada,  Logan, 
McMillan,  Mitchell,  Morrill,  Morton.  Oglesby,  Fad- 
dock,  Patterson.  Sargent,  Spencer,  Wadleigh,  and 
West-28. 

NAYS — Messrs.  Bogy,  Cockrell,  Cooper,  Davis, 
Eaton.  Gordon,  Jones  of  .Florida,  Kelly,  Kernan, 
Key,  McCreery,  McDonald,  Maxey,  Norwood,  Ran¬ 
dolph.  and  Stevenson — 16. 

ABSENT — Messrs.  Alcorn,  Barnum,  Bayard,  Cam¬ 
eron  of  Pennsylvania,  Conover,  Dawes,  Dennis, 
I'orsey.  Goldthwaite,  Hamilton,  Hamlin,  Hitchcock, 
Howe,  Ingalls.  Johnston,  Merrimon,  Ransom,  Rob¬ 
ertson,  Saulsbury,  Sharon,  Sherman,  Thurman, 
Wallace,  Whyte,  Windom,  Withers,  and  Wright — 27. 

The  PRESIDENT  pro  tempore.  Two- 
thirds  of  the  Senators  present  not  having 
voted  to  agree  to  the  resolution,  the  same  is 
not  passed. 

The  Senate  amendment  only  carries  out 
the  principle  and  cures  the  defects  of  the 
article  as  it  came  from  the  House,  but  it 
does  so  effectually. 

Why,  sir,  provide  that  money  raised  for 
schools  shall  not  be  appropriated  to  secta¬ 
rian  schools  and  leave  it  lawful  to  appropri¬ 
ate  to  sectarian  schools  from  the  general 
Treasury  ? 

Why  should  we  prohibit  appropriations 
to  sectarian  schools,  and  yet  permit  schools 
established  by  the  public  money  to  be  made 
sectarian  ? 

Why  prohibit  appropriations  to  sectarian 
schools  and  permit  money  to  be  appropria- 


ted  to  sectarian  institutions  of  another  char¬ 
acter  ?  Why  prohibit  appropriations  to  re¬ 
ligious  sects  and  permit  them  to  be  made 
to  infidel  sects  ? 

There  is  no  reason.  And  any  one  who 
could  honestly  and  sincerely  vote  for 
the  article  as  it  came  from  the  House  should 
rejoice  in  the  opportunity  of  voting  for  the 
Senate  amendment. 

Not  only  does  the  article  as  it  came  from 
the  House  merely  apply  to  the  appropria¬ 
tion  of  money  raised  for  schools  to  sectarian 
purposes,  but  it  omits  to  give  Congress  any 
power  by  legislation  to  prevent  or  punish 
the  violations  of  the  article. 

The  usual  section  conferring  power  on 
Congress  by  legislation  to  enforce  an  amend¬ 
ment  is  in  these  words : 

Congress  shall  have  power  to  enforce  this  article 
by  appropriate  legislation. 

But  as  the  committee  were  aware  that 
some  might  argue  that  such  a  section  would 
confer  on  Congress  the  power  to  interfere 
with  public  schools  of  the  States,  the  com¬ 
mittee,  to  avoid  all  possible  objection,  have 
— though  they  were  satisfied  that  an  article 
so  phrased  would  not  have  the  effect 
claimed — reported  a  section  which  gives  no 
affirmation  power  to  Congress,  but  simply 
provides  that — 

Congress  shall  have  power,  by  appropriate  legisla¬ 
tion.  to  provide  for  the  prevention  and  punishment 
of  violations  of  this  article. 

This  section  takes  the  place  of  the  strange 
•  provision  of  the  article  as  it  came  from  the 
House,  which  is  in  these  words: 

This  article  shall  not  vest,  enlarge,  or  diminish 
legislative  power  in  Congress. 

Some  have  called  this  House  article  the 
Blain£  amendment.  No  such  provision 
was  ever  suggested  by  that  distinguished 
man.  He  left  the  article  to  be  enforced 
under  the  provisions  of  the  original  Con¬ 
stitution,  which  (article  1,  section  9,  placit 
18)  provides — 

That  Congress  shall  have  power  to  make  all  laws 
which  shall  be  necessary  and  proper  to  carry  into 
execution  the  foregoing  powers  and  all  other  powers 
vested  by  this  Constitution  in  the  Government  of  the 
United  States  or  in  any  department  or  office  thereof; 
and  this  article  is  to  bo  part  of  this  Constitution. 

This  article  when  adopted,  by  the  very 
terms  of  the  fifth  article  of  the  Constitution, 
becomes,  in  thellanguageof  the  Constitution, 
“to  all  intents  and  purposes  a  part  of  the 
Constitution.”  Now  the  provision  as  it 
comes  from  the  House  prevents  the  provis¬ 
ion  of  the  old  Constitution  which  I  have 
read  from  operating,  for  it  declares  that 
•‘nothing  in  this  article  shall  he  held  to 
vest,  enlarge,  or  diminish  any  legislative 
power  in  Congress.”  So  that  Congress 
would  have  no  more  power  over  the  subject 
after  the  passage  of  the  article  than  it  had 
before  it  was  passed,  while  the  section  intro¬ 
duced  in  the  Senate  amendment  limits  the 


power  of  the  old  Constitution  by  making  a 
specific  provision  that  Congress  shall  have 
power  over  this  subject  so  far  as  to  prevent 
and  punish  violations  of  this  article. 

Mr.  President,  it  has  been  said  that  this 
amendment  will  prevent  religious  instruct¬ 
ion  in  our  prisons  and  other  institutions 
supported  by  the  public  revenue.  The 
clause  which  is  relied  upon  to  maintain 
that  position  is  this : 

A ud  no  such  particular  creed  or  tenets — 

That  is,  ‘no  particular  creed  or  tenets — 

of  any  religions  or  anti-religious  sect  or  denomination 
shall  be  read  or  taught  in  any  school  or  institution 
supported  in  whole  or  in  part  by  gach — 

That  is  public — 
revenue. 

Sir,  does  that  prohibit  religious  instruc¬ 
tion  in  prisons  ?  Does  it  prevent  religious 
instruction  anywhere  ?  If  the  visit  to  those 
who  are  sick  and  in  prison  is  for  the  purpose 
of  reading  to  them  or  of  teaching  them  the 
particular  creed  or  tenets  of  a  religious  or 
anti-religious  sect  or  denomination,  this 
art  icle  does  interfere  with  it,  and  is  designed 
to.  Institutions  supported  by  the  money 
of  all  persuasions,  even  though  they  be 
prisons,  are  not  to  be  made  schools  for 
teaching  presbyterianism,  or  Catholicism, 
unitarianism,  or  methodism,  or  infidelity,  or 
atheism,  and  this  article  says  so.  But  this 
article  goes  no  further.  There  is  nothing 
in  it  that  prohibits  religion  as  distinguished 
from  the  particular  creed  or  tenents  of  re¬ 
ligious  and  anti-religious  sects  and  denomi¬ 
nations  being  taught  anywhere. 

That  pure  and  undefiled  religion  which 
appertains  to  the  relationship  and  responsi¬ 
bility  of  man  to  God,  and  is  readily  dis¬ 
tinguishable  from  the  creeds  of  sects  ;  that 
religion  which  permeates  all  our  laws,  which 
is  recognized  in  every  sentence  against 
crime  and  immorality,  which  is  invoked 
in  every  oath,  which  is  reverentially  defer¬ 
red  to  every  morning  at  that  desk  and  on 
like  occasions  at  the  capital  of  every  State 
of  the  Union  ;  that  religion  which  is  recog¬ 
nized  by  our  Presidents  and  governors 
every  year  in  the  thanksgivings  of  the  peo¬ 
ple,  to  which  one-seventh  part  of  the  cen¬ 
tury  which  has  just  closed  has  been  devoted  ; 
that  religion  which  is  our  history,  which 
is  our  unwritten  as  well  as  our  written 
law,  and  which  sustains  the  pillars  of 
our  liberty,  is  a  very,  very  different  thing 
from  the  particular  creeds  or  tenets  of 
either  religionists  or  infidels.  And  this  ar¬ 
ticle  places  no  unhallowed  touch  upon  that 
religion.  While  we  punish  the  violations 
of  the  oath  or  other  moral  obligation,  it 
would  be  monstrous  by  affirmative  legisla¬ 
tion  to  restrict  religious  instruction.  On 
this  subject  let  me  briefly  quote  from  Story 
and  Webster  and  Washington.  Story  says: 


4 


It  is  impossible  for  those  who  believe  in  the  truth 
of  Christianity  as  a  divine  revelation  to  doubt  that  it 
is  the  especial  duty  of  government  to  foster  and  en¬ 
courage  it  among  all  the  citizens  and  subjects.  This 
is  a  point  wholly  distinct  from  that  of  the  right  of 
private  judgment  in  matters  of  religion  and  of  the 
freedom  of  public  worship  according  to  the  dictates 
of  one’s  conscience. 

Webster  says : 

i  If  we  work  upon  marble,  it  will  perish ;  if  we  work 
tipon  brass,  time  will  efface  it;  if  we  rear  temples, 
they  will  crumble  to  the  dust.  But  if  we  work  on 
men’s  immortal  minds ;  if  we  imbue  them  with  high 
principles,  with  the  just  fear  of  God  and  their  fellow;  - 
men,  we  engrave  on  those  tablets  something  which 
no  time  can  efface,  but  which  will  brighten  and 
brighten  to  all  eternity. 

Washington,  in  liis  Farewell  Address, 
says : 

Of  all  the  dispositions  and  habits  which  lead  to 
prosperity,  religion  and  morality  are  indispensable 
supports.  In  vain  would  that  man  claim  the  tribute 
of  patriotism  who  should  labor  to  subvert  these  great 
pillars  of  human  happiness,  these  purest  props  of  the 
duties  of  men  and  citizens.  The  mere  politician 
equally  with  the  pious  man  ought  to  respect  and 
cherisli  them.  A  volume  could  not  trace  all  their 
connections  with  private  and  public  felicity.  Let  it 
simply  be  asked  where  is  the  security  for  property, 
for  reputation,  for  life,  if  the  sense  of  "religious  obliga¬ 
tion  desert  the  oaths,  which  are  the  instruments  of 
investigations  in  courts  of  justice?  And  let  us  with 
caution" indulge  the  supposition  that  morality  can  be 
maintained  without  religion.  Whatever  may  be  con¬ 
ceded  to  the  influence  of  refined  education  on  minds 
of  peculiar  structure,  reason  and  experience  both 
forbid  us  to  expect  that  national  morality  can  prevail 
in  exclusion  of  religious  principle. 

Again,  some  one  has  said  that  he  thought 
the  Bible  was  a  religious  book.  That  re¬ 
mark  arises,  sir,  from  the  provision  in  the  arti¬ 
cle  of  amendment  that  sectarian  creeds  are  to 
he  excluded,  but  that  this  provission  shall 
not  be  construed  to  exclude  the  Bible.  Let 
me  say  that  the  saving  clause  in  favor  of  the 
Bible  is  just,  because  it  is  a  religious  and 
not  a  sectarian  hook. 

I  have  a  few  words  more  to  say.  There 
is  one  provision  in  the  article  to  which  I 
have  not  called  attention.  If  the  amend¬ 
ment  to  the  Constitution  is  to  answer  any 
purpose,  it  is  to  exclude  sectarian  teaching 
from  public  schools,  and  this  article  says  so. 
That  expression  might  be  perverted  to 
effect  the  exclusion  of  the  Bible,  and  the 
provission  that  it  shall  not  be  so  construed 
was  necessary  to  exclude  that  conclusion,  so 
as  to  leave  the  Bible  in  its  relations  to  the 
public  schools  and  institution  where  it  stands 
now. 

It  says  that,  while  Shakespeare  and  Ho¬ 
mer,  Junius  and  Juvenal  are  not  to  he  ex¬ 
cluded,  the  Bible  shall  not,  by  reason  of  this 
article,  be  excluded.  The  Constitution  of 
this  country  will  never  treat  that  book  with 
disrespect.  No  party  will  ever  have  it  ta¬ 
booed.  Who  wants  this  article  to  exclude 
the  Bible  ? 

Not  the  Catholics.  It  is  the  rule  of  their 
faith  and  practice  and  they  want  more,  not 
less,  religious  instructions.  They  were  the 
first  in  this  country  when  establishing  the 


government  of  Maryland  to  provide  in  her 
fundamental  law  for  religious  freedom.  The 
Protestants  do  not  want  it  excluded,  because 
it  is  their  rule  of  faith.  The  Israelite  does 
not  want  it  excluded,  because  it  is  the  guide 
to  his  conscience.  The  atheist  does  not 
want  it  excluded,  for  he  recognizes  no  supe¬ 
rior  ;  he  is  a  law  unto  himself.  It  is  a  mat¬ 
ter  of  indifference  to  him  whether  the  Bible 
or  Dabold’s  Arithmetic  or  Hale’s  History  of 
the  United  States  is  used  in  the  school,  so 
far  as  his  conscience  is  concerned. 

But  then  we  are  told  that  there  are  differ¬ 
ent  translations  of  the  Eihle.  True,  and  yet 
there  is  but  one  Bible;  that  is  the  revelation 
from  on  High.  There  are  various  transla¬ 
tions,  and  the  excellence  of  this  article  is 
that  it  prevents  the  exclusion  of  any.  Noth¬ 
ing  in  this  article  shall  he  construed  to  ex¬ 
clude  either  the  Douay  or  the  King  James 
version.  I  am  for  the  broadest  toleration, 
but  I  would  never  agree  to  a  constitutional 
amendment  that  would  exclude  from  the 
schools  the  Bible.  The  Constitution  should 
neither  say  that  it  should  or  that  it  should 
not  he  read  in  the  schools.  To  attempt 
either  would  be  to  mingle  politics  with  relig¬ 
ion,  which  all  would  deprecate.  Make  the 
Bible  a  political  ensign,  and  a  party  spirit 
such  as  clustered  round  the  white  and  red 
rose  would  he  aroused,  in  which  perhaps 
there  would  be  no  more  piety  than  there 
was  in  the  spirit  that  animated  Richard  the 
Lion-hearted  and  his  followers  when  they 
rallied  around  the  cross,  or  Saladin  and  his 
Mohammedan  hordes  when  they  fought  for 
the  crescent.  »: 

Into  such  a  conflict,  having  forsworn  all 
idolatry,, even  though  the  Bible  be  on  the 
shrine,  I  will  not  enter.  “  Put  up  thy  swoed, 
my  kingdom  is  not  of  this  worl  l,”*is  the  in¬ 
junction  of  our  religion.  But  this  article  of 
the  Constitution  must  not  exclude  it  unless 
we  come  to  the*  conclusion  that  the  narrative 
of  the  creation,  that  the  maxims  of  Solo¬ 
mon,  that  the  logic  of  Paul,  and  those 
truths  that  have  lighted  up  the  future  to 
unnumbered  generations,  are  injurious  to 
public  morals ! 

Mr.  President,  where  shall  we  go  for  pub¬ 
lic  morals?  If  you  must  exclude  the  Bible 
you  must  banish  all  our  literature  or  expur¬ 
gate  it,  for  it  would  be  the  height  of  folly  to 
say  that  it  is  lawful  to  drink  from  the  con¬ 
duits  which  human  hands  had  made,  but 
not  from  the  pure  fountain.  Where  shall 
we  go?  To  the  Koran?  To  Confucius? 
To  the  Morman  Book  of  our  Lord  ?  To  the 
vain  philosophy  of  the  aneients?  To  mytho¬ 
logical  fables  ?  No,  sir  ;  the  people  of  this 
country  want  that  hook  let  alone.  The 
Constitution  must  not  touch  it.  It  is  to  be 
forced  upon  no  one  and  the  Constitution  ia 
to  make  it  unlawful  to  read  it  nowhere. 


